Again, the prototype had been returned and details already leaked to the public. There was no need to break into the man's house, and no manner of Apple-fan psychological gymnastics changes that. It was overkill.

So, wait. You're blaming *Apple* for the police breaking into the man's house? That implies Apple had some sort of operational control that I seriously doubt they had. Nor do I see any evidence that Apple pressured the police into taking that specific action. Wether or not the police should have acted that drastically, until someone can show Apple's involvement in that decision beyond filing a complaint, I'll have a hard time buying Apple should bear much if any blame for that decision.

As for wether the police should have seized computers and whatnot: I'm under the impression they were looking for any proprietary software that may have been offloaded from the iPhone prototype -- given the actions of the Gizmodo folks in regards the hardware of the prototype, a very real possibility. Where else would they have searched if not computers and memory devices? If the question is more about the method of the search (i.e. breaking-into the premises), that, again, would be the police you'd want to question, not Apple =)

Again, the prototype had been returned and details already leaked to the public. There was no need to break into the man's house, and no manner of Apple-fan psychological gymnastics changes that. It was overkill.

So, wait. You're blaming *Apple* for the police breaking into the man's house? That implies Apple had some sort of operational control that I seriously doubt they had. Nor do I see any evidence that Apple pressured the police into taking that specific action. Wether or not the police should have acted that drastically, until someone can show Apple's involvement in that decision beyond filing a complaint, I'll have a hard time buying Apple should bear much if any blame for that decision.

As for wether the police should have seized computers and whatnot: I'm under the impression they were looking for any proprietary software that may have been offloaded from the iPhone prototype -- given the actions of the Gizmodo folks in regards the hardware of the prototype, a very real possibility. Where else would they have searched if not computers and memory devices? If the question is more about the method of the search (i.e. breaking-into the premises), that, again, would be the police you'd want to question, not Apple =)

I think you've picked one quote from my reply and in doing so have completely tossed the context.

_________________________“Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."

All I see is Apple filing a complaint and informing the police on what to look for - Computers , HDs , Thumb Drives yada yada

In factAny police bust be it a drug , murder , assault , stolen property as in this case - You betcha they will grab anything that has a memory , especially cell phones . All that stuff can carry even more evidence .

Now for busting down the door , well that maybe a little overboard . All they needed to do was serve the search and seizure Warrant . I dunno ? maybe they thought he could do a remote wipe all drives , if they happily walked in and gave him the time to do so .

I think you've picked one quote from my reply and in doing so have completely tossed the context.

My apologies if I've misread your posts -- in what what way have I taken them out of context? You seem to be concerned here that a corporation has had undue influence on law enforcement. I have merely asked what makes Apple's (in this case) actions so nefarious compared with what any other company or individual would or should do under the circumstances. Or in what way Apple has inappropriately pressured those officials into doing something they shouldn't have. I really don't see where Apple has crossed a line here.

It doesn't matter that some other company might do the same- which, actually, reinforces my point and is worse. Nor is there any hard requirement of a 'bribe or threat' necessary for a corporation to have undue influence on law enforcement (and yes, that is what I'm saying is possible here). To think so is a bit naive, I think. Same goes for the entire 'bad guy' thing. I never said there was a good guy in this situation. Maybe not even a bad guy either, but certainly a lot of stupidity. As aforementioned several times now, even others in law enforcement saw this as over the top and possibly in violation of an individual's rights. That they're taking time to look into this should say something. I'd say at this point the motivation is, more or less, to win an argument than acknowledge what's right out in the open. Between the two, I'll gladly quit dragging it around in circles and take the second.

_________________________“Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."

I'd say at this point the motivation is, more or less, to win an argument than acknowledge what's right out in the open.

Well,my motivation is to find out what people think Apple has done that is wrong. I keep asking specifically for what it was that Apple is supposed to have done that unduly influenced the police, and nobody so far has provided any real specific answer. If it's so obvious and in the open, you'd think somebody by now would have enlightened those like me who are apparently missing some sort of elephant in the room.

What they've done wrong is that it's not very good for business. Apple aint cool anymore - They look like a stuffed suit. Suspend the turbodorkness for a second and dwell on the Mass of the bread and butter.

This is regarding the continued success ( long time in internet time ) of the iPhone:

Quote:

What is it about the iPhone? Its success shows how Apple has triumphed at two crucial qualities: status and simplicity. And it's a reminder that while intense Apple fans will obsess over the upgrades the iPhone is expected to get this summer, such details won't matter as much to everyday buyers.

Other phones have higher-resolution cameras and can shoot high-definition video. The processor seems faster in new phones such as the Droid Incredible. A more energy-efficient touch-screen technology is eclipsing the one used in the iPhone screen. And competitors are matching features that once set the iPhone apart, including its slim shape and its store with thousands of applications and games.

"This thing is not state of the art," says ABI Research analyst Michael Morgan.

But whether the iPhone has the best technology doesn't seem to be the question most people ask.

Instead, many people crave the aura of cool that iPhones seem to convey.

"When you see people with them, I'm like, 'Oh, OK, they get it,'" says Jason Sfetko, a designer at Complex magazine in New York. When he sees someone with a BlackBerry, "I might think, maybe they're an accountant or something. They're answering too many e-mails."

It will get harder for them. They need an obfuscation department - Now that would be cool Fake protos, specs, emails, whatever in the wild - Apple twatterings/buzz/whatever universe explodes, no one knows what's up or down, just controlled Apple noise. Quarterly phenom. Cool

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.